Inclusive HR practices in the new ways of working: enablers and challenges with invisible disabilities

Workplace diversity and inclusion have become strategic imperatives within modern human resource management (Palumbo et al., 2023), placing new and critical demands on human resources (HR) to implement inclusive disability management practices. Yet, HR's daily reality involves constant meetings, frequent interruptions and urgent requests, leaving limited time for strategic initiatives (Wallo and Coetzer, 2023). In recent decades, the HR role has shifted towards supporting managers rather than employees (Ahl et al., 2017; Wallo and Coetzer, 2023). Aligning with New Public Management, organisations and HR functions increasingly emphasise efficiency, effectiveness and productivity (Wahl et al., 2018; Ahl et al., 2017). This shift raises concerns that HR work risks reproducing a modern form of Taylorism, prioritising control and cost-cutting over the relational and supporting aspects of HR practice (Ahl et al., 2017). While many HR professionals wish to focus on people-oriented matters, they are often constrained by competing tasks and managerial demands (Finnholm et al., 2024).

In the post-COVID era, New Ways of Working require HR to play a central role in creating inclusive workplaces for employees with disabilities – both in physical office settings and remote environments (Klinksiek et al., 2023). These new approaches emphasise flexibility, collaboration, empowerment, autonomy and freedom (Klinksiek et al., 2023). Such flexibility can meet individual needs and reduce barriers common in traditional office settings (Millmark et al., 2025). Employees with disabilities are also more likely than those without disabilities to work mainly remotely (Schur et al., 2020). These new arrangements bring both opportunities and challenges that must be addressed (Seino, 2024). Employees with disabilities often encounter workplace challenges and risk unfair treatment or exclusion (Mik-Meyer, 2016). People with invisible disabilities may also struggle to make their needs understood (Kattari et al., 2018). In practice, this often means employees manage individually rather than organisations taking responsibility (Millmark et al., 2025). Moreover, employees with invisible disabilities frequently conceal their conditions due to stigma (Kattari et al., 2018). Abney et al. (2022) argue that a lack of awareness of invisible disabilities can lead to inadequate support and insufficient workplace adjustments. According to the World Health Organization (WHO, 2022), about 16% of the global population has disabilities, many of which are non-visible.

In Sweden, the Discrimination Act (SFS, 2008, p. 567) prohibits discrimination based on disability. Despite this, one-third of working-age people with disabilities report work-related discrimination (Diskrimineringsombudsmannen, 2024). Employers are legally obliged to adapt work and the work environment to employees' physical, mental and personal capacities under the Swedish Environment Act (SFS, 1977, p. 1160). Employers must also continually assess whether any employee needs workplace adjustments (Arbetsmiljöverket, AFS, 2020, p. 5). However, Swedish municipal workplaces are marked by high workloads, stress and limited job control (Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, 2023), potentially hindering everyday inclusive practices. There is thus a need for HR to take a more proactive organisational role (Wallo and Coetzer, 2023). Yet, Swedish regulations remain vague regarding responsibility for providing support (Gustafsson, 2023). Although several actors may be involved, there is no systematic follow-up on how support is used, by whom or with what outcomes (Gustafsson, 2023). This ambiguity is further complicated within HR, where expectations are often unclear (Wallo and Coetzer, 2023). Norstedt and Germundson (2025) argue that employers’ lack of knowledge prevents them from taking responsibility for accommodation processes, a situation exacerbated by economic pressures that further limit organisational flexibility. Wallo et al. (2020) also argue that HR should focus more on assessing the outcomes of learning activities.

Disabilities have received limited attention in Sweden, while the United Nations has recommended strengthening disability competence and accessibility, particularly in the public sector (Myndigheten för delaktighet, 2025, p. 4). Organisational size may matter, as smaller organisations often have less developed HR structures (Norstedt and Germundsson, 2025). Research on inclusive disability management highlights the need for structured, inclusive job design in recruitment, as well as training to improve awareness and attitudes and promote sustainable inclusive development (Schloemer-Jarvis et al., 2022). However, research on effective HR practices for including people with disabilities remains limited and fragmented (Schloemer-Jarvis et al., 2022; Palumbo et al., 2023), making this study a valuable contribution. Colombi Evangelista et al. (2025) stress the importance of future research into sector-specific conditions, including the public sector. There is also a need for research on inclusive workplaces to understand how enabling practices can help people with disabilities feel more included in the New Ways of Working (Klinksiek et al., 2023). This study makes a novel contribution by integrating inclusive HR practices with New Ways of Working, focusing on an often-overlooked group: employees with invisible disabilities.

Responding to these calls, the aim of this study is to deepen the understanding of how challenges and enablers influence HR officers' practices in promoting the inclusion of employees with invisible disabilities, particularly within the context of New Ways of Working. The following research questions are elaborated to meet the aim:

1. What organisational challenges and enablers do HR encounter in promoting inclusion of employees with invisible disabilities?

2. How do these factors influence HR's practices within the New Ways of Working?

The Swedish Discrimination Ombudsman (DO, 2026) defines disability as a permanent or temporary “physical, mental, or intellectual limitation of a person's functional capacity”. In Sweden, a distinction is commonly made between impairment (funktionsnedsättning), which refers to a limitation in an individual's functional capacity, and disability (funktionshinder), which denotes the barriers that arise in the interaction between individuals and their environment. This means that impairment is something a person has; it is not who they are (DO, 2026). This distinction reflects the social model of disability (e.g. Oliver, 2013), which sees disability as resulting from environmental, organisational or attitudinal barriers. A further complication for inclusive workplaces concerns invisible disabilities, which are often overlooked due to HR professionals' and managers' lack of awareness of employees' undisclosed challenges (Abney et al., 2022). This study defines invisible disabilities as impairments that are not obviously outwardly visible (cf., Abney et al., 2022; Kattari et al., 2018; Norstedt, 2019; Kulkarni, 2022), meaning that these impairments may only become apparent in specific situations or when the individual chooses to disclose them (Kattari et al., 2018).

Traditional disability management refers to a systematic approach aimed at minimising the impact of reduced functioning and supporting employees' health to prevent further deterioration (Smith, 1997). Such approaches benefit both organisations and employees with disabilities by increasing productivity, reducing sick-leave costs and providing proactive support (Smith, 1997). The core components of previous disability management – prevention, early intervention, prompt to return to work and case management – highlight the importance of organisational structures (Smith, 1997). More recent scholarship extends this perspective towards inclusion, recognising that sustainable disability management requires inclusive HR practices (Palumbo et al., 2023). In this regard, contemporary understandings of inclusion move beyond managing disability-related risks and instead acknowledge more complex approaches, including hybrid and remote work arrangements (Klinksiek et al., 2023). However, Palumbo et al. (2023) argue that traditional disability management has been focused on harder “fixing” strategies such as return-to-work processes and policies. In contrast, evolving approaches call for softer, more holistic, people-centred and inclusion-oriented HR involvement (Palumbo et al., 2023). This is particularly important given the persistent stereotypes and stigma faced by people with disabilities (Mik-Meyer, 2016). There may also be a gap between organisational policies and the outcome (Colombi Evangelista et al., 2025). Accordingly, this study focuses on HR's work of inclusion, aiming to enable employees with invisible disabilities to feel included within the context of New Ways of Working.

Stigma is defined as “an attribute that is deeply discrediting” (Goffman, 1963, p. 13). While stigma theory remains influential in contemporary research (Gibbons and Birks, 2016), it has been criticised for placing primarily emphasis on individual interactions and underplaying the structural and organisational dimensions of stigma (Link and Phelan, 2001). In organisational contexts, stigma is enacted not only through interpersonal interactions but also through policies, norms and routine practices. Stigma theory is therefore used here to understand both stigmatising and destigmatising practices. Stigma may lead individuals to adopt various impression management strategies to conform to societal expectations and norms (Goffman, 1963). For employees with invisible disabilities, such strategies may involve concealing or “passing”, to reduce exposure to stigma, but these can limit access to support and necessary accommodations (Kulkarni, 2022; Goffman, 1963). Chaudoir et al. (2016) further demonstrate that individuals with invisible stigmas tend to experience greater isolation and receive less support compared to those with visible stigmas. In the context of New Ways of Working, stigma can become more complex and may be reduced when colleagues work remotely and employees with disabilities are no longer singled out (Fuentes and Lindsay, 2023). Nevertheless, this shift can also introduce new challenges, as emerging accommodation needs in home-based work settings may potentially increase stigma (Fuentes and Lindsay, 2023). Moreover, a focus on specific groups, may give rise to processes of “othering” (Kulkarni et al., 2018), reinforcing an “us versus them” dynamic. This illustrates how policies and well-intentioned practices can have unintended consequences, including reinforcing stigma (Gibbons and Birks, 2016). Such dynamics may cause employees with disabilities to feel singled out or alienated, highlighting the importance of organisational competence and sensitivity. This raises important questions about HR's capacity to not only set standards for inclusive behaviour, but also to address the subtle and structural nature of stigma in organisations.

New Ways of Working have become increasingly prevalent following the COVID-19 pandemic, requiring organisations to develop new work processes and adapt managerial practices (Klinksiek et al., 2023). For HR, this includes staying informed about remote working arrangements, workplace accommodation, and evolving policy requirements. In Sweden, the proportion of employees aged 20–64 working from home at least half the time reached approximately 46%, an increase of 26% points since 2008 (SCB, 2025, p. 1). In contrast, the municipal sector shows an opposite trend, with the proportion decreasing from 7 to 5% between 2019 and 2024 (SCB, 2025, p. 1). This lower prevalence of remote work in municipalities may be explained by the nature of jobs requiring physical, in-person interaction (SCB, 2025:1). Research indicates both positive and negative effects of remote work for people with disabilities (Seino, 2024). Positive aspects include improved accessibility, reduced stigma around workplace accommodations, opportunities for advocacy, increased control over work settings and more supportive environments (Fuentes and Lindsay, 2023). It may also help employees manage their health more effectively (Williamson et al., 2024; Schur et al., 2020). However, remote and hybrid environments may not adequately meet sensory or social needs, and can lead to increased isolation, loneliness, stress and fatigue (Fuentes and Lindsay, 2023). These potential drawbacks may partly explain employers' reluctance to offer remote work as accommodation (Schur et al., 2020). Overall, New Ways of Working reshape both opportunities and challenges for inclusion, requiring organisations to reconsider how support is structured and delivered.

Research on inclusion highlights the importance of organisational strategies aimed at normalising disability in the workplace. For example, Pérez-Conesa et al. (2020) demonstrate that effective inclusion requires a strategic plan to normalise disability at work. One key aspect is normalising discussions around workplace accommodation (Abney et al., 2022). Expanding and challenging dominant understanding of what is considered “normal”, may foster a shift in how inclusion is conceptualised and practiced. When people learn about disabilities, what they once considered deviant or unknown becomes familiar and normalised (Abney et al., 2022). Organisations therefore need a strategic plan to normalise disabilities (Abney et al., 2022; Pérez-Conesa et al., 2020). Ultimately, organisations need to challenge existing norms to enable inclusive efforts (Millmark et al., 2025).

HR plays a key role in organisations and in advancing inclusion (Palumbo et al., 2023), and there are often high expectations for HR to go beyond administrative responsibilities (Finnholm et al., 2024; Wallo and Coetzer, 2023). To clarify the general competencies required of HR practitioners, Finnholm et al. (2024) identify three key components: skills, motivation and opportunities created by organisational conditions. At the same time, HR professionals are expected to balance interests of both managers and employees, manage emotions, build trust and address resistance within organisations (Finnholm et al., 2024). These extensive and often competing expectations highlight the need for organisational support not only for managers and employees with invisible disabilities, but also for HR practitioners, to contribute to a sustainable work environment.

To summarise, the theoretical lens adopted in this study highlights the complexities of inclusion as well as hidden challenges and stigma, offering an understanding of both enablers and barriers in HR practices within the context of New Ways of Working.

The study's methodology, which comprises semi-structured interviews with twelve HR officers, provides an appropriate approach for exploring the nuanced experiences and perceptions related to HR's role in disability inclusion. A qualitative approach was adopted to deepen understanding (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009) of HR officers' work in creating inclusive work environment for employees with invisible disabilities within the context of New Ways of Working. A thematic analysis was conducted, guided by Braun and Clarke (2006). To enhance credibility and address the alignment between participants' perspectives and researchers' interpretations (Nowell et al., 2017), participants in the research project were invited to take part in learning seminars. These seminars provided opportunities to give feedback, engage with preliminary findings and contribute to the validation of the study's results. Two learning seminars were conducted, involving a total of four participants. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

The study received ethical approval from the Swedish Research Ethical Committee (2022–00927-01, 2023–00563-02).

The context of this study is Swedish municipalities, where New Public Management, with its emphasis on efficiency, has influenced organisational views of productivity and ideal worker norms (Vänje, 2021). According to HR, employees in roles that permit working from home can often do so up to 50% of their working time. HR officers included in this study primarily held a supportive role towards managers, which explains why they frequently referred to how managers work with the inclusion of employees with disabilities. Some HR officers worked, for example, with rehabilitation and some with work environment issues. Participants were recruited by contacting HR directors or HR managers in eight Swedish municipalities (see Table 1), who in turn recommended HR officers likely to have knowledge about disabilities and working from home. These HR officers were then contacted directly and invited to participate, with responses collected via email by the researcher (author). The recruitment process resulted in twelve HR officers from eight Swedish municipalities, participating in eleven semi-structured interviews. Two participants chose to be interviewed together, and this was accommodated. The sample consisted of ten women and two men, aged between 30 and 65 years. All participants, except one, held a university degree. In four municipalities, two HR representatives participated, while in the remaining four municipalities, one person participated. HR's daily work was described as time-pressured. The municipalities included in the study vary considerably in organisational size, providing variation in administrative capacity and workforce structure. To ensure anonymity, the municipalities are categorised into three groups: small, medium and large.

The HR officers who consented to participate received written and oral information about the study's aim and procedures before being scheduled for an interview. Semi-structured interviews were guided by three initial themes: inclusion, disclosure and workplace accommodation. Consent was obtained prior to each interview. Interviews lasted between 45 and 61 min (excluding introduction and conclusion) and were conducted digitally via Zoom, except for one by telephone, between June 2023 and March 2024. All interviews were recorded with a Dictaphone, transcribed verbatim and analysed by the interviewer (author).

A thematic analysis, inspired by Braun and Clarke (2006), was conducted using Nvivo14 software to organise codes and themes. First, the interviewer read all transcripts multiple times to become familiar with the data. Initial codes were then identified in Nvivo14, and potential themes were developed. Themes were reviewed for coherence and consistency, refined and then clearly defined. “Enablers” emerged as the first main theme, comprising the sub-themes of competence, soft skills and open work culture. “Barriers” constituted the second main theme, with the sub-themes lack of organisational resources, invisible challenges and negative attitudes (see Figure 1). Although thematic analysis is widely used and flexible, it may lead to inconsistencies in theme development (Nowell et al., 2017). To enhance trustworthiness, the analysis and themes were thoroughly discussed with other researchers in the research project (Nowell et al., 2017). Once themes were finalised, the findings were written up, linking the analysis to the study's aim and the existing literature (Braun and Clarke, 2006).

HR in this study defined inclusion as “a workplace where everyone feels welcome, valued, and respected, no matter their diverse backgrounds and characteristics”. Emerged themes and subthemes are presented in Figure 1 above. Themes were organised to illuminate how enablers and barriers relate to one another, to provide a better understanding of HR practices. Pseudonyms are used to protect participants anonymity.

For HR officers to create an inclusive work environment, particularly in remote working contexts, interviews identified support, accommodation, disability awareness and competence as key factors. HR highlighted training and role-playing for managers as inclusion strategies to deepen understanding of diversity. In one municipality, disability education had been made mandatory to ensure that all new managers develop the necessary level of competence, which in this specific municipality shows a more proactive approach. However, disability competence was primarily associated with the municipality's citizens rather than its employees. When issues relating to disabilities arose, HR officers described the support they could receive from Occupational Health Service, such as arranging training when needed, although this involved additional costs. The reliance on ad hoc support suggests HR acts reactively (Wallo and Coetzer, 2023). Some HR officers sought internal expertise from employees with visible or disclosed disabilities to improve their understanding. One HR officer explained how, after an employee had disclosed her disability, HR involved her in improving accommodation for others with similar needs (cf., Kattari et al., 2018).

One large municipality benefited from access to a disability expert, who actively promoted and normalised disabilities within the organisation. This expert, who had a disability himself, had worked on inclusion for several years and had become a valued and integral part of the organisational culture. One HR officer also described learning from colleagues in other municipalities. Ester: “What we work a lot with in all kinds of questions, is to not reinvent the wheel again, but if someone has already done something, we like to replicate”.

While building disability competence is a key foundation for inclusive HR practices, this requires adequate organisational resources such as time, financial capacity, personnel, training and organisational structures. Due to these constraints, HR officers often sought assistance on an ad hoc basis when disability-related issues arose. This reactive approach was problematic when there was no dedicated disability expert or when collaboration with Occupational Health Services was limited. HR officers and particularly managers were described as stressed and struggled to dedicate sufficient time to inclusion efforts. As one HR officer (Elvira) noted: “Then we would probably need about five to ten more people (laughs) to be able to address all the issues we want in a qualitative way. It's often about that, that we don't have the time”. One HR officer admitted she had not previously considered disability issues, but reflecting during the interview led her to recognise the need to develop her own competence.

Most HR officers reported that they did not feel able to support managers in disability-related matters and instead referred such issues to Occupational Health Services. Agneta: “Yes, personally I feel that I can't support that much at all because I don't have enough knowledge, I would say. As you heard, I didn't even know what the abbreviation was”. When asked how HR supported managers in disability-related matters, Frida referred to using guidelines or referring to Occupational Health Service. Notably, not all municipalities had developed guidelines or policies relating to disability and workplace accommodation in remote working contexts. This challenges the assumption that larger organisations have structured HR policies (cf., Norstedt and Germundsson, 2025).

It was generally expected that managers and HR officers already had disability knowledge of disabilities before employment, but this was rarely the case. Disability education was perceived as insufficient in university programmes, with only one exception, placing responsibility on organisations to provide such training. At the same time, the costs of education were identified as a potential barrier, particularly given the financial constraints faced by many Swedish municipalities. However, Norstedt and Germundsson (2025) note that employers often overestimate accommodation costs. Findings revealed a pattern where issues in which employees, managers and HR officers frequently addressed issues on an individual level and ad hoc basis. HR officers often developed their understanding of disability independently, through experience and active information seeking, rather than through structured organisational training. Where HR officers lacked competence, strategies or established routines regarding disabilities, employees were often left to resolve challenges themselves, without adequate organisational support (cf., Millmark et al., 2025). HR work was frequently described as demand-driven, with action dependent on managers raising issues as they arose. This finding reflects previous research showing that HR is often demand-driven (Finnholm et al., 2024). This created an inherent challenge when managers did not reach out to HR. Elvira: “Not all issues reach us at HR”.

Competence also needed regular updating. It was clear that disability received less attention than other grounds of discrimination. Interestingly, although the study focused on disability and working from home, interviews rarely discussed disability in the context of work from home settings. In some municipalities, disability was not on the agenda, and participants acknowledged this required improvement.

Overall, there was a recognised need for greater competence and understanding about disability. However, barriers included insufficient organisational resources, such as time, financial capacity, staffing, training and supportive structures to effectively implement and sustain inclusion. Furthermore, when disability was not raised or openly discussed, it was often assumed that it did not require significant organisational attention.

To create an inclusive work environment for employees with invisible disabilities, HR emphasised the importance of soft skills, sensitivity and genuine active listening, particularly among managers who work more closely with employees (cf., Finnholm et al., 2024; Palumbo et al., 2023). These qualities were considered essential for creating a trustworthy, open, permissive, caring and respectful work environment, in line with Pérez-Conesa et al. (2020). A systematic approach involving ongoing dialogue with employees was identified as an important strategy, including listening to individual needs and discussing how the organisation could provide appropriate support. This required empathy from managers, and HR encouraged open dialogue, strong relationships and attention to early signs of difficulty. As Caroline noted: “I think it's super important to have a sense of security and to have built up trust and relationships”. According to HR officers, these practices help create an open and inclusive work environment where employees with invisible disabilities feel more encouraged to share their challenges and needs and possibly disclose (cf., Lindsay et al., 2020). Invisible disabilities include, for example, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), autism and dyslexia.

HR officers also stressed the importance of a welcoming and safe work environment from recruitment onwards (cf., Lindsay et al., 2020). One inclusion strategy was to work with core values that permeate the organisation (cf., Klinksiek et al., 2023). Patience and continuous efforts to build trusting relationships yielded positive outcomes, as reflected in employee surveys. HR further explained that mentoring schemes were offered to all new employees and managers during the first year as a form of support.

While soft skills and empathetic management contribute to a more open and inclusive work environment, HR officers identified hidden challenges with invisible disabilities. Managing such cases was seen as complex, often due to uncertainty and lack of knowledge about how to ask questions and respond appropriately. Difficulties were not always recognised unless they manifested as changes in behaviour, increased absenteeism or misconduct, which could reinforce stigma. Management was challenging because employees were not obliged to disclose their condition, making it difficult to provide appropriate accommodation, as needs could remain unidentified due to avoidance or fear of discrimination (cf., Kulkarni, 2022). Consequently, responsibility often fell on the individual.

HR described being unaware of many ongoing issues, as these were often unreported managed by employees or line managers without HR involvement. This reflects research showing HR often operates at a distance, relying on managers for information (Wallo and Coetzer, 2023). HR noted that remote work could enable employees to hide impairments, making it challenging to provide support without disclosure. As Linda explained: “When we talk in terms of remote work, it is very important to address this, because remote work can be a way to continue hiding them (disabilities)”.

Given that many employees expressed a preference for increased remote work, HR needed clear guidelines and policies regarding eligibility and extent. In some municipalities, employees with disabilities were therefore required to disclose their condition and provide evidence to receive accommodation. As one HR officer (Jimmy) stated: “I have to be frank there, if you don't have a dialogue about it, I can't walk around and guess that you need specific accommodation”. By contrast, another HR officer (Elvira) emphasised that employees should only need to disclose their needs, not a formal diagnosis, to receive accommodations: “If one doesn't want to tell, they don't have to! I think it's unfortunate if someone chooses not to because of the stigma, particularly regarding societal view and perceptions of this type of diagnosis”. When disabilities were not visible, employees were often expected to perform in the same way as others, without recognition of their differing needs and challenges.

The importance of continuously working towards an open and respectful work culture was highlighted in all interviews, though it was seen as requiring time, patience and engagement. In two of the municipalities, inclusion had, according to HR, become a natural and embedded aspect of the organisational culture (cf., Glade et al., 2020). Ensuring inclusion of employees with disabilities remained a consistent priority at all levels, especially among higher management and was seen as vital for inclusion efforts. One experienced HR officer described inclusion as deeply embedded after years of active work. The study showed that to create an open and respectful work culture for employees with invisible disabilities, HR officers considered it important to place disability on the agenda, discuss it openly and engage with it daily. One strategy for normalising disabilities, reducing stigma and increasing understanding (cf., Abney et al., 2022) was the use of films illustrating different disabilities in practice.

Another municipality had begun producing films about disability as part of its inclusion work and found this approach valuable for raising awareness and creating understanding among those without prior close contact. HR addressed inclusion across various contexts, including recruitment, accessibility of facilities and providing physical aids. In remote work, strategies included supporting managers in established routines such as regular digital check-ins and encouraging them to take time to listen to employees' experiences, feelings and needs.

In some cases, more proactive HR practices, such as workshops and training in respectful language and interaction, were emphasised. These strategies promoted inclusion and helped reduce jargon and microaggressions. HR encouraged managers to create open communication channels in remote working settings, such as chat forums, “digital fika” and walk-and-talk meetings. Other important aspects included promoting participation throughout the organisation, creating a supportive work environment, encouraging dialogue about diversity and working actively with core values (cf., Glade et al., 2020). This implies that by normalising disability and cultivating a culture of trust and respect, stigma is expected to decrease (cf., Abney et al., 2022).

While an open work culture supported inclusion, it was undermined by negative attitudes and stigma. The study showed barriers such as negative attitudes, stereotyping and stigma towards employees with invisible disabilities (cf., Abney et al., 2022). When present, these attitudes could discourage employees from disclosing their conditions and seeking support (cf., Kulkarni, 2022). As a result, HR's inclusive initiatives risked being reactive rather than proactive, as they depended on disclosure. Although most HR officers viewed working from home positively as accommodation, some negative attitudes persisted, stemming from perceived lack of control and suspicions about productivity. Disabilities were often not prioritised, signalling limited organisational importance and risking reinforcing negative attitudes towards affected employees.

Directives from top-level management were considered crucial for implementing inclusive actions and disability education, both to secure resources and guide HR priorities. HR reported that other forms of discrimination, such as ethnicity or gender, were given greater priority. Working from home was regarded by all but one HR officer as a form of workplace accommodation. However, when not viewed as such, this was due to perceptions of remote work as negative, difficult to control and less productive, reducing the likelihood of approval. Full-time remote work was often seen as temporary rehabilitation rather than a long-term option. When employees needed to work from home more than half time, this required disclosure of a diagnosis and supporting evidence. Negative attitudes could contribute to stigma, further discouraging disclosure. This shows that New Ways of Working can enable either inclusion or exclusion, depending on a range of factors (cf., Klinksiek et al., 2023).

The study also showed conflicting views among HR officers regarding responsibility for disability-related issues (cf., Finnholm et al., 2024). Some argued that managers should take primary responsibility, maintaining that they did not require extensive knowledge in this area. Others emphasised the importance of disability competence to effectively support managers. Three HR officers acknowledged limited knowledge of disabilities but did not consider this problematic, as they could refer to someone else with greater expertise. However, limited knowledge among HR weakens their ability to support managers, in line with Ahl et al. (2017).

Discussions about accessibility revealed that not all organisational systems were adapted to diverse needs. This lack of accessibility constituted a barrier to inclusion, as was limited competence; for example, managers seeking to dismiss employees with disabilities had to be reminded by HR about the Discrimination Act. This reactive approach positioned HR in a policing role rather than enabling proactive inclusion (cf., Palumbo et al., 2023). Making education mandatory was described as one way to address competence gaps and reduce stigma, representing a more proactive approach, from one of the municipalities.

In summary, the results indicated ongoing stigma, and HR described the need to educate and normalise disabilities to reduce it. This involved, for example, placing disabilities on the agenda, providing education, developing clear, inclusive and remote policies, organising workshops, creating films, supporting managers in digital strategies such as regular check-ins, and creating trust-based relationships.

In this section, critical reflections are presented based on empirical findings relating to the enablers and challenges in HR officers' work with inclusion of employees with invisible disabilities within New Ways of Working.

The Disability Inclusion Management Model (see Figure 2) synthesises the analysis by distinguishing between two dimensions: enablers and barriers. These further subdivide into subthemes such as disability competence, soft skills and open work culture, which act as destigmatising mechanisms that support trust, early dialogue and inclusion. In contrast, three additional subthemes – limited organisational resources, hidden challenges and negative attitudes – reinforce stigma and risk excluding employees with invisible disabilities. The model can be understood through stigma theory (Goffman, 1963), conceptualising organisational enablers as destigmatising mechanisms that reduce stereotyping, while barriers reproduce stigma through negative attitudes, structural constraints and the persistence of concealment strategies. The model thus provides a visual representation of the complexities surrounding enablers and challenges in HR's inclusive practices with employees with invisible disabilities within New Ways of Working. Ultimately, inclusion for employees with invisible disabilities is shaped by the extent to which organisations mitigate or reinforce stigma.

Consistent with Finnholm et al. (2024), the findings show that HR's role is broad yet constrained by competing priorities, including a lack of time and considerable administrative workloads. These pressures render HR's work fragmented and reactive (Wallo and Coetzer, 2023). As a result, disability inclusion is easily deprioritised and pushed to the periphery. HR officers in this study emphasised the need for greater organisational resources, such as time, staffing and disability-related education to conduct systematic inclusive work. Providing remote work as an accommodation can be a supportive measure that incurs minimal cost (cf., Norstedt and Germundsson, 2025; Klinksiek et al., 2023).

A central challenge concerned insufficient disability-related competence. Most HR officers reported receiving minimal education on disabilities during their university studies, despite being expected to possess such competence upon entering the profession. This gap limits HR's ability to work proactively and risks creating unintentional dismissive attitudes (cf., Norstedt and Germundsson, 2025). While some HR officers referred disability-related issues to Occupational Health Services, others highlighted the importance of supporting managers through informed guidance. This tension reflects a broader lack of clarity regarding organisational responsibility for disability inclusion (Gustafsson, 2023). Moreover, the influence of the HR function in driving organisational change is generally limited (Finnholm et al., 2024). In practice, this means that while HR can propose initiatives, more substantial change tends to occur when directives originate from top-level management, as highlighted in this study. Therefore, top management needs to allocate sufficient resources to disability education. It is particularly important for top-level management to lead by example and engage HR, managers and coworkers in the disability agenda. Furthermore, in line with Wallo and Coetzer (2023), higher education should better prepare future HR professionals with the realities of HR daily work. This study also aligns with Kattari et al. (2018), who caution against placing the burden of educating colleagues on employees with disabilities themselves; hence, this should be an organisational responsibility.

Due to stigma and ableist norms, individuals with invisible disabilities may be left to manage their conditions independently, which may risk leading to increased stress and sick leave (Abney et al., 2022). Workplace accommodation is intended to prevent ill health and reduce sick absence (Smith, 1997; Norstedt and Germundsson, 2025). Conversely, the absence of accommodation may result in additional costs for both individuals and organisations. Lack of knowledge, negative attitudes and stigma surrounding disabilities contributed to the deprioritisation of inclusion in several municipalities. Consistent with Kulkarni (2022), HR must do more to create inclusive workplaces, and one important aspect is normalising disabilities and raising disability awareness. HR officers in this study described various initiatives to cultivate an open work culture, including promoting regular digital check-ins, discussion cards, workshops and films, designed to encourage dialogue and reduce stigma. However, invisible disabilities were often recognised only when problems became apparent, such as misconduct, absenteeism or perceived incompetence. This reactive recognition reinforces stereotypes (Goffman, 1963) and reflects a system in which employees must disclose their diagnoses to access support. Consequently, disclosure becomes necessary not because the work environment is inclusive, but because it is structured around identifying and managing problems after they arise. This dynamic is rooted in the ideal worker norm (Acker, 2006), which is based on expectations of constant availability, uninterrupted productivity and minimal deviation from standard work patterns. Within this framework, any deviation from the norm is treated as an individual issue to be justified and managed, rather than as a normal and anticipated aspect of workforce diversity. A shift towards a more proactive “inclusive by design approach” that anticipates diverse needs in advance and embeds flexibility would reduce reliance on disclosure and create organisational structures where disability has a legitimate place (Millmark et al., 2025).

In traditional workplaces, performance has typically been assessed through physical presence in the office, visible to managers (Ahl et al., 2017). However, within the New Ways of Working, this logic is increasingly being challenged as performance becomes decoupled from fixed notions of time and place (Klinksiek et al., 2023; Williamson et al., 2024). In this study, remote work was frequently framed as a temporary rehabilitation measure, rather than a long-term adjustment, thereby placing pressure on employees to disclose their impairments. Moreover, remote work arrangements were primarily approved to enhance productivity. This aligns with New Public Management logics that prioritise efficiency (Vänje, 2021). Furthermore, remote work may enable employees to hide their challenges, delaying disclosure and preventing HR from offering timely support (Millmark et al., 2025). At the same time, the findings indicate that organisational enablers, such as trust and inclusive culture, can encourage disclosure and ensure that employees receive appropriate adjustments. Ultimately, providing broad, universal access to flexible work arrangements may contribute to the destigmatisation of accommodations (Abney et al., 2022), as such measures become embedded within standard work design rather than being seen as exceptional. When organisations fail to actively promote inclusion, invisible disabilities remain hidden until challenges become visible. Conversely, proactive efforts may reduce the risks associated with disclosure and make support more accessible (Lindsay et al., 2020).

The findings point to a broader organisational challenge: creating an inclusive culture cannot be reduced to the implementation of policies or training initiatives alone. Although disability-friendly cultures and inclusive work arrangements are frequently promoted as best practice, the development of an inclusive culture also depends on how these practices interact with underlying organisational norms, managerial assumptions and everyday work routines (e.g. Pérez-Conesa et al., 2020). This suggests that inclusion is not merely a technical task, adding policies, offering remote work or providing training – but also a social and relational process shaped by trust, respect and understanding (Palumbo et al., 2023). Notably, as Glade et al. (2020) emphasise, individuals with the same diagnosis may have fundamentally different needs, which challenges organisations to move beyond one-size-fits-all solutions. At the same time, there is a need to provide universal forms of accommodation that benefit a wider range of employees, including those with invisible disabilities (Abney et al., 2022). One such accommodation is remote working, as it can benefit many employees with disabilities ability in managing their health while maintaining productivity (Williamson et al., 2024).

Ultimately, inclusion is a shared organisational responsibility involving HR, managers, coworkers and employees with disabilities themselves (Glade et al., 2020). Sustained disability inclusion management requires coherent collaboration, clear responsibilities and proactive organisational design that reduces stigma and supports diverse ways of working.

This study demonstrates that “out of sight” frequently becomes “out of mind” in organisational practice. A predominantly reactive HR approach places employees with invisible disabilities in a precarious position where they are expected to manage their challenges individually, rather than receiving systematic organisational support. Disability inclusion was seldom prioritised by HR officers, particularly in relation to remote working, and was often conceptualised as an issue concerning citizens, rather than members of their own workforce. Limited resources, insufficient disability competence and the persistence of stigma further constrained disclosure and hindered proactive inclusion efforts. The findings underscore the need for mandatory disability-related education for HR professionals, both within organisations and as part of university-level HR curricula. The study also highlights the importance of explicitly integrating work-from-home accommodation into remote work and inclusion policies. Addressing these structural and cultural barriers could enable HR departments to adopt more destigmatising, equitable and supportive practices for employees with invisible disabilities, an imperative that becomes even more salient in the context of New Ways of Working.

As with any research, this study also has limitations. The model (see Figure 2) provides empirical insight into challenges and enablers shaping HR's inclusion efforts for employees with invisible disabilities. However, organisational contexts are inherently complex and vary across departments and settings. This study was conducted within Swedish municipalities, which operate under specific legislation, cultural and organisational conditions. Consequently, the transferability of the findings to other countries, cultures, sectors and organisational structures may be limited. Future research should explore inclusive HR practices connected to hidden challenges in the New Ways of Working and compare different sectors and contexts. There is also a need for longitudinal studies to learn about the outcomes from inclusive implications, preferably from multiple perspectives, including collaboration between HR and managers.

The study offers empirical contribution to the underexplored understanding of HR practices in disability inclusion in New Ways of Working and introduces a model (see Figure 2) that visualises organisational enablers and barriers. By implementing disability-focused training for HR officers, organisations can equip practitioners with the competence and confidence needed to address cases involving invisible disabilities in their daily work. Such training can help to standardise organisational responses, enhance decision-making and create more equitable treatment across departments. Providing mandatory training for HR can also support more consistent disability inclusion practices, reducing ad-hoc approaches. The findings further highlight the importance of normalising disability-related discussions through practical routines, such as brief workshops, discussion cards in team meetings or digital forums, to embed inclusion into everyday organisational practice.

I extend my gratitude to the Editor and reviewers for valuable comments. Thank you to participants for your engagement in the study, and to colleagues for your support. Copilot AI and Grammarly AI have been used for final language refinement and grammar checking.